it also reflects malay's own viewpoint. he was a centralist, and he believed, he was very loyal to lyndon b. johnson. he really credited him with passing the civil rights bill and to sort of lead the other democrats on why they needed to pass it, why it was important. .. ,

this cartoon is about ann mulligan, a cartoonist from 1933 to 1956 and she was the only female editorial cartoonist in the country. and in this one she uses familiar -- thed -- they're both pull thing party in two different directions and the republicans are getting a laugh at it. >> also very important editorial cartoons, and it usually takes a physical feature and exaggerates it. here you know we see church chill with the cigar. always sort of using the analogy that socialism is like a lowon

getting his tail clipped and now we're going to nip socialism one bit at a time. why we collect these materials is they give insight into what the average person thought about the issues of the day. so, we hope that in 100 years, when people look at the materials-these will be the primary sources they use in order to give context into any given place in time, to the issues happening today. >> for more information on the visit to columbus, ohio, and other cities on the vehicle tour, visit c-span2.org slash local content. >> now from the 2012 eagle forum collegians leadership submit. elizabeth liz kantor talks to her jane austen guide to happily ever after.

the program was held in heritage foundation in washington, dc and runs a little over 30 minutes. [applause] >> thanks so much. asked me to talk about marriage, which i'm very excited to do to a group of young, i imagine mostly single people, and i am going to drag in jane austen just as soon as possible. but i want to start with a paradox about marriage in the 21st century. at the end of last week there was an article in the "new york times" on comparing essentially single motherhood to parenthood with -- where two parents are married to each other, and explaining about the advantages of two-parent married families for children, and the only nog news worthy thing was that it was in the "new york times." folks who read indicate or charles murray or, about a

decade ago, maggie gallagher published a book call the case for marriage, why married people are happier, healthier, and better off financially. it's never been for clearly scientifically established that marriage is the best way to raise children, and really great for the people who are married. for their finances and for their personal happiness, and i am no social scientist but if you want to read up on this, brad wilcox at the university of virginia and the national marriage project has done a lot of work on this, and i actually acknowledge that these are things you have heard already. so, to maximize your happiness and make sure that your future as yet only imaginary children

turn out well, you're going to rush out and get marked for identification. right and obviously people don't get married for those calculating reasons. but even if you did decide to get engaged as soon as possible, it would be a little harter in the world today than it used to be. because the other side of the kind of paradox of marriage in the 21st century is that just at the time when it's become obvious that marriage is really good for people, marriage is in decline. wilcox talks about a retreat from marriage and a cohabitation revolution following on the heels of the divorce revolution and the earlier generation, and people say divorce rates have stabilized but that may be because fewer people are even attempting marriage in the first place. so, on the one hand we have this is great for people. oregon we have got people are

retreating from it and it's not just in marriage itself that we see this sort of crisis in relationships between men and women. there's been research for my book, and i'm going to talk about in a minute, i read an awful lot of people, just in popular culture, writing articles in books about relationships, and it's pretty clear that there is a crisis out there. it's like the modern relationship has hit a wall. a few years ago the atlantic magazine was advising women to settle for a guy that they couldn't really get excited about. last year the atlantic sort of even went a step further with all the single ladies, saying there aren't any good guys out there. just give up and resign yourself to being sing for the rest of your life. i read articles and books by a lot of women who are pretty

hostile about how men are immature and won't commit. i read a lot of comments by guys who are really angry about women who they think just see them as a meal ticket and are going to marry them and then walk away with the kids and the house and the dog and a big part of their paycheck. so, it seemed to me that marriage is in a kind of a crisis today, and also relationships as a result are kind of in a crisis. so, i read all kinds of interesting analysis of this problem, and what i did was i've written a book that is not analysis of the problem. this is the jane austen guide to happily ever after, and in it i'm proposing jane austen as really a solution to what is wrong with modern relationships, viable alternative to everything from the gut culture to the fact

that even folks who really aren't part of the culture complain a lot that it's hard to meet the right person or to come to place where you both want to commit to each other. i started with the project of writing about jane austen -- it's really a practical advice book. i wanted to make it a self-help book for women, and i hope to get toward the end to why a book like that needs to be directed more to women than to men. a real self-help book for women on just giving them very practical tips how they can change the course of their love life and i'll give you a brief run-through of the sample advice. some of it is about avoiding the various pitfalls on the way to happily ever after, staying away

from the crazy romanticism where you are pursuing drama, and on the other hand staying away from the send simple that makes for hostility between the sexes to it's hard for people to meet and love each other. there's a lot in the book of discerning men's intentions, which is something that women in jane austen's day just knew was a really important part of their job as a woman, whereas today there's a lot of women kind of scratching our heads about, why is he not that into me? why are men afraid of commitment? jane austen actually has -- well, i quickly found eight in six novels, examples of guys who are kind of class quickly afraid of commit independent her novel, and they range from people who are just hard-hearted players, like henry crawford, through a guy like willby in sense and sensibilities who is married to

his own immaturity. committing to not making a commitment. to somebody like -- at one point katherine wentworth looks like afraid of commitment and has to do with jealousy. it can help women a lot to look at a temp plate. i'm dealing with somebody who looked like he was interested in me bus it not anymore. which class does he fit into? what is the reason behind it? but i can't obviously give you the advice -- all the advice in the book in 15 minutes. so i want to back up a little bit and talk about sort of the case for jane austen as an alternative to the typical 21st century ways of thinking about dating and mating and courtship and all that kind of thing. when i first started writing the book, i was thinking, okay, jane austen is a genius at writing

and at social criticism and at male and female psychology and relationship dynamics, and she happened to be writing in an era before the crisis in relationships had gummed things up, and so she could have some useful advice for modern folks. but in the course of working on the book i came to see that jane austen was really more than that. i found out about what you could call her place in marriage history. the history of marriage, which is also the history of relationships -- is really interesting. for hundreds of years before jane austen -- and you can say starting with the place in the gospel where divorce is forbidden, and going through -- literally for hundreds of years. marriage as a lived experience for human beings had been improving, particularly in the

sense that marriage, in a practical way, as i think people live through, had been getting to be less and less about money arrangements, family alliances, parents giving their daughters away to get something in return. and more -- to be less about those things and more about love. for most -- for large numbers of people. and love, which in ancient times was mostly about, you know, adultery that you wrote poetry about, rather than living happily ever after. love had been getting to be more and more about marriage. so that by jane austen's day, young men and young women are making their own matches. they're deciding whom to marry themselves, not their parents or

guardians. but they're still aware that that's kind of a new freedom they have. that hasn't always been the case. that parent used to make these decisions and their freedom is a new thing. and partly because of that awareness, that it's now, you can arranger own marriage, they're still doing it with some prudence. so, a jane austen heroine, and like a real woman in the late 19th century, gets to marry the man she falls in love with, but she tries to take care not to fall in love with somebody who is going to ruin her life. she sees she needs to think about, will they have enough money to live on? does he have a character flaw, say, compulsive gambling or alcoholism that is sure to ruin her life. she is -- if you look at the end of "pride and prejudice" there's

definitely passion there. a people tour of two people who are real really in love with each other, but also a picture of what -- called rational happiness. in other words their deliriousry excited about each other but also have very good ropes for -- good reason they're going to be happy. they're having extreme motions and it will be exciting but it will end. so, jane austen is a high point in the history -- in the literary history but literature and real life, especially when it comes to relationships, you know, affect each other a lot. you have to ask yourself, why 200 years ago was a story like the story in "pride and prejudice" realistic enough to write believable popular fiction today. and today what's our believable

popular fiction about relationships? sex in the city. girls on hbo. so, that wouldn't happen if the reality that is reflected in the fiction and self-shaped. the fiction shapes the reality kind of in turn. and i wish i had time to talk about how things like the courtly love and the wages changed marriage. there's all kinds of marriage history there. but sticking to jane austen. she is a real high point in the history of fiction about marriage, the novel of manners, as they called it. but also in the history of marriage, because -- not only because it took hundred office years to get to the point where women had choices like the choices in pie pride and prejudice." but because after jane austen, even starting in her day, the

things started to come unraveled. so she is a high point because it's downhill from there. what caused it to unravel is a whole big group of ideas you can call romanticism or the cult of sensibility or liberation movement. jake austen made fun of this thing in an early work called "love and friendship" which is a satire where everybody finds stuff like -- happiness seems very boring to them and instead they're in pursuit of intensity. authenticity. liberation, intense experiences, basically they good around expecting love to strike them like lightning, and then not unnaturally they kind of wake up and find their lives are charred rubble after that experience. so, for the last 200 years, we have kind of as a culture in

terms of our pop culture and music, our fiction, the way we talk about love --'ve kind of being seesawing back and forth between a romanticism that says just follow your bliss. it doesn't mary -- you only know it's love it makes you miserable. on the one hand, right? which is -- and then -- which has all kind of problems. and then on the other hand kind of a victorian or neovictorian attempt to hush the whole thing up, you know, be careful, watch out, don't take any risks. but i think it could benefit us a lot to get back behind that false dilemma between passion and prudence and realize you can have both if you go about love the rig way. the clear-eyed 18th century way that jane austen can show you.

jane austen's novel, 200 years after they were written -- "pride and prejudice's" publication date is 200 years ago next year. are still really compelling for a lot of modern women. they sell a lot of copies and we watch the movies, and i think that's because they express something that is really a universal as per racing of the human race. -- aspiration of the human race. at the owned of "pride and prejudice" shows you marriage, a permanent, committed relationship, as an ideal that really almost anybody can see the attraction of, but maybe it's hard for us to see woot why it's compelling or what the sort

of principles and insights are that she is putting into that picture. and i can talk about a lot of different principles that jane austen -- that you find in jane austen novels, but the one i think is -- i want to talk about because it's the most politically incorrect. the hardest for modern people to take seriously, and what it is it sexual compliment tear, the idea that men and women are quite different from each other not only in the obvious physical ways but that there are important psychological differences between men and women in jane austen novels you see that mostly when you're looking at how a man or woman approaches a relationship. mr. darcy, in a snarky mod, says, laid's imagine is a very rapid. it jumps from aberration to love, from love to matrimony, in

a moment. now, i don't know if this is your experience, but to me it rings true that typically not -- i mean, obviously there are always exceptions exceptions toy any rule, but typically women at an earlier phase anywhere relationship start thinking about long-term possibilities, typically earlier than guys do, and that can create problems in relationships. another theme which you can get jane austen's insight in the difference between men and women, is in "sense and sensibility" when marian found out that willowby deserted her to marry a woman with a lot of money, and her sister is comforting her, and marian -- and saying, unfortunately, he didn't feel about you the way you feet about him, and marian says, he did feel the same. for weeks and weeks he felt it.

i know he did. now, it's puzzling because if you read "sense and sensibility" it seems like they do feel the same way. they're excited about each other. they want to -- early in the book. they want to spend all their time together. thoroughly enjoying each other0s company, but either willow by didn't feel the same way, or else he could feel that way but is was easier for him to forget it. it kind of lights um -- highlights a way in which typically women are more forward looking when it comes to relationships, and men are more living in the moment. i found in "the new york times" something in their modern love section, a really interesting piece by a woman named margaret

fields who won a contest to be in the "new york times" about her love life. she complains about none of the men in her life will commit to her or anybody else. she don't know anybody who has a boyfriend tt doesn't have an open relatnship. d so she says -- she is striving for a zen-like sense of attachment, so she can essentially live with the fact that the men in her life are like that. no one is any property and neither am theirs so i should enjoy the time together because it's our collective experiences that add up to a rich and fulfilling life. the guys in her life don't seem to have to strive for that zenlike type of attachment, and i guess what i'm recommending from jane austen is that women could take our natural capacity for relationships, our natural almost obsession with relationship, and make it a strength, not a weakness.

not try to make ourselves accommodate ourselves to the men at their worst, but that both men and women could learn how to do better together. [applause] >> you must have questions. yes, the lady in blue. >> my name is suzanne kelly. i'm from -- i want to thank you for being here. my question -- okay. my question for you, in today's society, i notice a lot of couples who get engaged, wait for years before they get married. do you personally think it's healthier, once you fine that person, you know you want to get married, do you go ahead and jump into the relationship and go for the ride or do you wait it out until it's the perfect time to get married? >> i think -- i don't -- it's

funny. jane austen makes a little bit of fun of the clicheed wisdom of her day, which was long engagements are a terrible thing, but she -- i think she might think our engagements today or bizarrely long, and i think your put your finger right on part of the problem when you said, waiting for everything to be perfect. you know, in a certain sense, finding love and commitment with the right person is perfect. but there's a lot of talk in the literature about marriage, about how marriage is postponed for people because they're waiting until they have achieved all these milestones of adult life. finished a long education. made saved up for a house. can afford -- this is the one i

think is crazy -- can afford a $20,000 wedding. it's not about the party. it's really about a life-long commitment, and you think it would make sense to want to start your life with that person in a relatively short period of time. right? >> do you think delaying the marriage often times destroys the relationship? >> well, i mean, every relationship is different. every regs e relationship is different, and i'm not saying a long engagement could never make sense. i'm just saying that the goal is just life are long relationship of commitments, and, again, reading a little bit of the marriage literature, it seems like one of the reasons the age of marriage is so late and that the marriage rate is so low comparatively by historical terms, is that people are

waiting until their lives are almost perfect already to think about getting married, which i think is a secular problem. >> did you have a -- go ahead. >> thank you for coming. >> speak close to the mic. >> what is your favorite jane austen book? >> i can't say. it's like who is your favorite child. there's just -- i mean, they're her children but all perfect. i have -- i mean, d-i would recommend pie provide and prejudice" because it's so fun and -- i have a special place in my hart for persuasion because really my first experience reading it was when i had first fallen in love with my husband and he recommended i read it. it was like -- i mean it was -- it was almost like being on drugs or something. it's like you have these indoor

fibs -- endorphins running through your brain and then you're reading this book which is like doubling and tripling the experience. so, i don't think anybody can argue who has ever really been deeply in love that jane austen, even show she was a spinster who was never married, she didn't know at all about it. she knows exactly what she is talking about. >> hi. i'm kristina from patrick henry college. i was wondering about the search for marriage in men and women and -- has hindered friendships between single men and women? >> in practical terms, in terms of how we can kind of fix the courtship rituals, if you can still call them that -- it seems like -- i mean, for example, you have a relationship that starts

as a really close friendship. to me it seems like what we need is more occasions for men and women to pay sort of casual attention to each other. a situation in which asking somebody out for a date doesn't mean you asked them out, essentially going out with you. so, our culture will be healthier when we get to a state where men and women can be friends and they can be sort of casual dates. in jane austen's day, you went to a dance and a guy could ask you to a dance -- he was expressing some sort of interest in you. it was kind of acknowledged. he thought you were cute or he wouldn't ask you to dance. but it was a very limited sort of experience. everybody knew it was for a couple of dances and then you were supposed to dance with other people for the rest of the

night. i mean, you could tell me better than i know because you're in it, but i get a lot of complaints when i speak, women come up to me -- sometimes men -- where can i meet women like this? part of the problem is that it's so high stakes for a guy to pay any -- a little bit of attention to a girl to ask her out once because it might be he is asking her out in that other sense. >> in the back. >> one more question. sorry. i married my wife loves all the jane austen books and makes me watch them all. i just wanted to ask you, it seems like generally men live up -- the things expected of them. my wife expects know be a gentleman, and so i'm just curious, with the way that modern feminism kind of doesn't have very many expectations of men. they just want them to get out of the way.

do now feel like that has something to do with relationship problems and how since women don't necessarily expect men to be gentlemen all the time, men live down to that expectation-and that causes some of the issues between men and women and how we're just not get can married anymore because men are like, why should i? i can get everything i want out of the relationship and i can leave and nobody has a problem with that anymore. >> i think there's a lot of truth to what you're saying. i think jane austen really offers a completely different idea of female empowerment from the sort of substandard kind of female empowerment that we're often taught. i don't know if you remember, there was an -- i didn't seal the show but there was a question that is famous from sex in the city, and is can a woman have sex like a man? and what that means is, can a woman have sex like a really cold and heartless player, not

like a decent human being or a gentleman. and what you see in jane austen instead, she is interested in this question and there's a famous part where she talks about men, women and -- her characters talk about men and women and the different kind of capacities they have for love. her kind of courtship and the kind of rules to live by -- which in the jane austen -- i try to show how those rules, those principles, can be updated in a really practical way for modern women. her heroines live by certain rules for themselves and then also expect certain things from men. and all of that is in aid of getting to a place where a man can be in love like a woman. a man -- at the end of the novels, men are not weddleed and caressed.

the women are not negotiating them painfully into admitting that he is her boyfriend, and then proposing, and then often today the negotiations not even finished by the time your married and then you still have to kind of painfully talk him into having a baby. that kind of -- that kind of relationship is not the kind that jane austen's heroines have. the have relationships built on high female expectations, and they get to a point where the hero wants to lay everything at her feet, very different kind of dynamic, and i think it does depend on high female expectations. >> elizabeth, since i have weddleed men into seeing jane austen movies with me, is austen good for men to read and. >> i think so. i think so. i mean, i am -- i think jane austen is good for everybody, really, and i have a lot of men

have read my book and are excited about it. but in terms of just who is going to change this dynamic in modern relationships? i'm actually betting on women. i think we're more interested in the question. >> hi. i'm hannah from the university of michigan. i would love to hear your thoughts on the media today? and we have shows like girls, where the main character, hannah, is treated spoily by her boyfriend. movies and shows like true blood and twilight where it shows an infatuation with one another. so i feel like there are a lot of mixed messages. >> you know, there's a lot of media -- for girls, for example. i mean, i watch the publicity materials. i'm not going to be a watcher. so i don't have a lot of -- i don't watch all these shows. i can't comment on them. i think that what is interesting

if you compare what you hear about extension the city with girls, for example, that -- i think it's just evidence that the kind of modern courtship rituals, if you can call them courtship -- are -- people are becoming frustrated with them and are willing to complain. that is just supposed to be about the assorted humiliations of a group of girls in new york, and 20 years ago, women weren't complaining that their love lives were a bunch of assorted humiliations. it's all about, we're empowered and free. so to me it seems like there's evidence that people are ready for an alternative. >> hi. gabrielle from smith college. i have a question.

it seems like a lot of young people nowdays are getting married but the problem is there's a level of commitment but the marriage covenant isn't there, and when they say, till death do us part, they mean until no longer happy, and because americans prioritize happiness above all other things, and then win happy happiness goes so does the marriage. what is your advice to after happily every after when the harder years come? because we know that initial infatuation can't last throughout the marriage because there are rough patches. >> certainly there will be rough patches. you know, i don't -- to me it seems like i don't think it's the right way to talk about it to say, after happily ever after to me you can see, for example, in pie provide and prejudice" darcy and elizabeth are already doing -- before they get married, what they are going to need to do to make their marriage really happy in the long run. i mean, their relationship,

which is in a certain sense the one jane austen gets into the interior of psychologically more than the other relationships. their relationship works and really succeeds in the first place just because both darcy and elizabeth are willing to overcome their personal flaws and mistakes in order to learn better. and that's what "pride and prejudice" are about. it's a prejudice against darcy because he is a little shy, really, and seems like a snob, and toward a guy who is completely worthless player, right? mr. wickham, and darcy has to overcome his disdain for her. he talks about her fine eyes and he is very attracted to her, but he just thinks i'm attracted to her because she is cute. he doesn't appreciate her as a

human being. and so he proposes to her in kind of almost an insulting way the first time, like, you've overcome my good sense and i want to marry you, because i can't help it. which is not the right way to approach it. and she turns him down flat, and then he goes away and does the thing you have to do in a relationship after your married, which is realize, think about, could any of this have been my fault? so, they're moving from a love that's merely romantic to a love that is what we call charity. >> thank you, elizabeth. [applause] >> is there noon fiction author or book you'd like to see featured? send us an e-mail or tweet us. >> while in columbus, ohio, book tv took tours of several

important literary sights. with the help of our local cable afilla, time warner cable. our coverage continues now. >> welcome. good to see you all, and we are at -- i am paul in ohio. lived in a lot of houses in columbus, ohio, and we're in the house he lived in when he went to ohio state university from 1913 to 1917. james thurber is o of the great american authors and is often compared with mark twain. he was a humorist. he never read any novels but a master of the short form is what they like to say. he also very well nope for his cartooning, especially his cartoons of dogs, and his career at the new yorker, he blossomed into being one of america's great writers.

i like to move throughout the house and tell the stories about the family as we see the house. this room has a great history. we know the father of three boys had a lot of noise to put up. but with 50 dogs and not all at one time, i might ad, one poor boy almost fainted when he thought what was true. they always had two or three dogs and this is where charles would retire, close off the doors and put himself in isolation, and the boys and the dogs knew this was kind of his area. let me read you a great quote about charles. he was politician and not a striking man. never accomplished great things. but thunder thurber himself writes a chapter about people who had a big impact on his life. this is not a long quote but tells you about charles thurber. he was always playinged be the mechanical. also plagued by the manufacturing which takes in a

great deal more group. knobs, doors stuck, lines fouled, the detachable would not detach, the adjustable would not adjust. he could rarely get the top off anything and was forever trying to unlock something with the key to something else. >> so, charles was quite a man, and of course he had to put up with his wife, and she is quite a story in herself. she was fisher, and the fishers are very famous family in columbus. there will five fishers and mame is the one we thought james got -- and we're not going to go in the kitchen, which is now the office, but in the kitchen mom used to bake brownies every christmas, and this is an interesting thing she did. nearly every year. and james remembers because they had a dog mugs who liked to bite people, and she had a very cavalier attitude toward this

dog biting people. she just made sure she knew who they were so the boys could give them chocolates and brownies every christmas for being bit by mugs and that's the way she took things. another funny dog story has to do with maime. she had a sister who didn't like dogs and the dog didn't like here either. but she was coming over once and they had a great plan, and mame said go get some dogs in the neighborhood and gather them up. they had two or three at the time of their own, they had over a dozen and a half dogs locked in the basement. the sister came. maime says, i'm so busy with dipper would you feed the dogs, she said, i hate those dogs, just set the plate by the top of the stairs, open the door no problem. well, you can imagine, and thurber writes about the instance dent with wonderful humor. the dogs burst out. she grabbed a broom, chased them

all over the house and they were jumping out of windows, she had to chase them out from under beds and it was chaotic, and this us hour thurber writes: i hope your satisfied, charles says, and james writes, she was. now we'll move upstairs and, oh, my heavens, i can't help but remember one more maime story. it happened at a bannister just like this. charles was a politician, and imagine him sitting in the parlor with the politicians talking about what politicians talked about, and miame in a negligee, was said to have leaned over the bannister, and she said to these men, let me out of the attic? and charles lived with her happily all these years.

his wife was in columbus. a tip childhood and one incident stanes out. they were visiting in washington, his brother william wanted to my william tell. and being the younger brother, jamie got to play the one with the apple to his wisdom he did have his back to his brewer -- brother, but he turn at the wrong time and had his eye put out. at about stenyears old. so james thurber had a glass eye all of his life, and because of that glass eye, his other eye went bad and the last four or five years of his life he was pretty much legally blind. could see very little. i mentioned one of the piece wes have here, the glasses he used, and there's a picture of him that you may not be able to see too well, looking very, very close to his drawings that helped him to see. but his life at ohio state was

interesting because of that glass eye. he couldn't pass biology, he had trouble with -- he was no good at baseball. he had no depth perception. so, poor mr. thurber did not graduate from ohio state. now, i mentioned the new yorker, and this is really where thurber's life took off. when he was in connecticut, he lived in connecticut most of the time, he worked for ross. ross was the editor of the new yorker, and their relationship and his relationship with e.b. white, the author of charlotte's web, really solidified him as a writer in the american eye. most of his short pieces were published in the new yorker and his cartoons got rave reviews. people loved them. as primitive as they are, they captured something, and a fun story we tell on this short video i like to tell is how how